Virginia HB961 - Actual gun confiscation unless you register it with the state

[RocksInMyHead]

should you though? In that case why are parents not arrested if their kid say shoplifts?

Because the perpetrator is the one arrested. Guess who pays any fines/court costs though?

With a 15-year-old, there are some gray areas, it's true. Should sufficient malice and motive be established, a teenager can be tried as an adult and face the full consequences of their actions. But if parents/guardians are found to be negligent, they will assume some responsibility under the law as well, proportional to said negligence.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Because the perpetrator is the one arrested. Guess who pays any fines/court costs though?

With a 15-year-old, there are some gray areas, it's true. Should sufficient malice and motive be established, a teenager can be tried as an adult and face the full consequences of their actions. But if parents/guardians are found to be negligent, they will assume some responsibility under the law as well, proportional to said negligence.

Why what is negligent about having your gun where it is accessiable in a hurry if need be and your teenager does something he or she should not?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Why what is negligent about having your gun where it is accessiable in a hurry if need be and your teenager does something he or she should not?

Leaving a gun accessible to a minor without supervision is unquestionably negligent.

 

[iluvatar5150]

no I do not drive

I didn't think so.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Leaving a gun accessible to a minor without supervision is unquestionably negligent.

How so? If the minor is a very young child yes, but if the minor is a teenager who should know better and is sometimes left at home it should be solely on them if they commit a crime with a gun. ( unless the parent had reason to know the minor could not be trusted due to say mental health issues. It is not like a person turns 18 and suddenly is different. I mean what happens if that minor is 17 years 11 months and twenty-nine days the parents are negligent, yet if the same thing happened the very next day they are in the clear?

 

[Hank77]

Yes, but at some point, I believe it is like 72 hours at some point they either charge or release. The exception would be if there were another charge they could hold them on for longer.

I agree but most working people can't afford to be taking days off and they would likely lose their job anyway just for ending up in jail and not co-operating with the authorities. Terrible consequences can happen to people even when they are innocent.

 

[98cwitr]

Leaving a gun accessible to a minor without supervision is unquestionably negligent.

*loaded gun, *inexperienced minor

 

[RocksInMyHead]

*loaded gun, *inexperienced minor

While I largely agree with your loaded/unloaded distinction, it can result in children not treating guns with proper respect, so personally, I'd never leave even an unloaded weapon accessible.

And I definitely disagree with qualifying access based on a minor's experience with guns. Obviously there are some gray areas towards the late teenage years and the arbitrary numbers associated with age of majority, but in general, a minor with experience handling weapons still shouldn't be trusted to access and operate them unsupervised. It has nothing to do with their ability to use the weapon safely - I know plenty of children who could school me on range safety or shooting skill (not hard at all - I don't shoot very often and I'm a terrible shot) - and everything to do with judgment. There are very few children who have the level-headedness and maturity to truly know when they should use a gun, especially for self-defense.

 

[dogs4thewin]

While I largely agree with your loaded/unloaded distinction, it can result in children not treating guns with proper respect, so personally, I'd never leave even an unloaded weapon accessible.

And I definitely disagree with qualifying access based on a minor's experience with guns. Obviously there are some gray areas towards the late teenage years and the arbitrary numbers associated with age of majority, but in general, a minor with experience handling weapons still shouldn't be trusted to access and operate them unsupervised. It has nothing to do with their ability to use the weapon safely - I know plenty of children who could school me on range safety or shooting skill (not hard at all - I don't shoot very often and I'm a terrible shot) - and everything to do with judgment. There are very few children who have the level-headedness and maturity to truly know when they should use a gun, especially for self-defense.

so if I am day short of my 18th birthday my parents should face the same charges as they would if I were say ten or twelve? Under the law in most states and cases that 17 year old is a child.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, but the purpose of the amendment, clearly stated, is to secure a "well-regulated militia." There is nothing about a militia, whether you regard it as the National Guard or merely the able-bodied armed men of the community, which requires or implies the right to ownership of firearms in secret from the government. Registration is not an infringement.

What registration does is to provide the government with the perfect tool to begin confiscation. They can't confiscate what they don't know about, but registration tells them exactly what they need to know in order to confiscate.

 

[Speedwell]

Does not work that way, it is on the state to prove whether I did anything wrong.

No, you're in a bind. If a gun registered to you is found at a crime scene and you haven't reported it lost, 'stolen or sold then you've got some 'splainin' to do. You may have an alibi for the shooting but then you have to face charges of violating the gun registration laws.

 

[dogs4thewin]

No, you're in a bind. If a gun registered to you is found at a crime scene and you haven't reported it lost, 'stolen or sold then you've got some 'splainin' to do. You may have an alibi for the shooting but then you have to face charges of violating the gun registration laws.

and there should be no registerion laws.

 

[dogs4thewin]

What registration does is to provide the government with the perfect tool to begin confiscation. They can't confiscate what they don't know about, but registration tells them exactly what they need to know in order to confiscate.

If I could winner that a million times I would.

 

[Speedwell]

What registration does is to provide the government with the perfect tool to begin confiscation. They can't confiscate what they don't know about, but registration tells them exactly what they need to know in order to confiscate.

But I thought that ownership of those guns is what would protect you from such tyrannical acts on the part of the government. "We need our guns to protect ourselves against the government but if the government knows we have them they'll come and take them away and we won't be able to protect ourselves against the government." Right.

 

[dogs4thewin]

But I thought that ownership of those guns is what would protect you from such tyrannical acts on the part of the government. "We need our guns to protect ourselves against the government but if the government knows we have them they'll come and take them away and we won't be able to protect ourselves against the government." Right.

yup because they will know who has what for them to take. You cannot take what you do not know someone has.

 

[Skreeper]

What is wrong with not allowing illegals to stay?

The effort and cost in finding and removing illegals is much higher than just letting them stay.

 

[dogs4thewin]

The effort and cost in finding and removing illegals is much higher than just letting them stay.

unless they catch them either on a tip or for any crime. Currently there are several crimes which do not result in an illegal being deported. They do not have to go look for them, but if ratted on or caught ( even for say a speeding ticket they should be deported.

 

[Skreeper]

How come no one here is complaining that machine guns are heavily regulated and must be registered?

There are criminals out there with fully automatic weapons...should we be able to possess such weapons without needing to register them?

They are, after all, firearms....is the gubmint infringing on our rights because they are heavily regulated?

That's not all.. These evil communist liberals are trying to take away my legally owned grenade launcher, RPG and mortar!

How am I supposed to protect my family?

 

[Speedwell]

yup because they will know who has what for them to take. You cannot take what you do not know someone has.

And you can't stop them, even though you are armed. Tell me, then, what tyrannical acts of the government are you prepared to resist that you need these guns for?

 

[98cwitr]

While I largely agree with your loaded/unloaded distinction, it can result in children not treating guns with proper respect, so personally, I'd never leave even an unloaded weapon accessible.

And I definitely disagree with qualifying access based on a minor's experience with guns. Obviously there are some gray areas towards the late teenage years and the arbitrary numbers associated with age of majority, but in general, a minor with experience handling weapons still shouldn't be trusted to access and operate them unsupervised. It has nothing to do with their ability to use the weapon safely - I know plenty of children who could school me on range safety or shooting skill (not hard at all - I don't shoot very often and I'm a terrible shot) - and everything to do with judgment. There are very few children who have the level-headedness and maturity to truly know when they should use a gun, especially for self-defense.

So if a 16 year old wants to walk into the woods in the back yard with a shotgun or a .22 and go squirrel hunting, in your opinion, he or she should not be unsupervised?